Tubular control arms
 

So i got a quote from cpp for my upper and lower control arms as well as drop spindles. with my discount i am look at around 1100 shipped. now is there any other company i should look at? i know ride tech but they are out of my budget.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Performance on line.com has them as well.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

What are you wanting to do with the control arms?
Static coil spring drop.
Bags?
Coilovers?
I remember CPP's lower arms having too small of pocket to use for air bags, if you decide that in the future.

Personally I like Porterbuilt products.
But everyone complains about the build times, (like its the last thing they need to complete their truck)
They are top quality and come ready to use in many forms:
Coil spring, coilover, bags.
Narrowed, 1" forward (to center the wheels in the wheel opening), or narrowed AND forward.
Give them a call.
www.pbfab.com


Here's a RE-7 or SS-7 Slam Specialties 2600 bag stuffed in a CPP lower a-arm,...

Re: Tubular control arms
 

i plan on doing bags. they show that they have two different styles for the lower control arms. with or without bags.i like porterbuilt stuff too but unfortunately they are a little out of my price range

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Here's a good thread to read:
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=431083

In my opinion you need a 2600 bag up front. (7" diameter)

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Porterbuilt or Ridetech would be my choices.
I would static drop it or use stock a-arms to bag it until you get the money for quality a-arms.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

I am planning on ordering CPP uppers and lowers (for coils, stock height), are there any vendors on here selling them?

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Why do you want tubular arms? Is there a huge benefit to them?

Re: Tubular control arms
 

For me no not a huge benefit I'm sure, other than appearance. I am doing a frame off, for for the second time, and don't see a reason to put 37 year old stamped steel arms back on my '81 C-10 when these are available.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Go porterbuilt. Save money in the long run buying the best.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Actually been in contact with choppin block out of California. Their arms look pretty dang good.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

I bought Performance Online

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Im not a fan of potrorbuilt and there issues. I would check out mmw, Michigan metal works arms are top notch or chopping block arms. Im going to use mmw arms on my c-30

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Yeah I was talking with choppin block and they have a new kit coming out. I may just wait for that. Just means waiting longer

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Are MMW arms for bags only?

Re: Tubular control arms
 

No, there built to order for whatever application u have.
Check there Instagram they post lots of pics and generally answer any questions u may have

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Awesome thanks.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

I would highly recommend against a flat plate control arm from MMWs and the like.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

MMW build both tubular and flat plate arms, its which ever u prefer

Re: Tubular control arms
 

You happy with them?

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Why is that?

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Very.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

I'll try to explain with enough proof to make sense but without getting too far into the engineering.

A control arm by intended use, notably a lower control arm, needs to be resistant to bending in the vehicle's primary direction of travel and direction of jounce. As a way to judge a shapes bending resistance, engineers use the second moment of inertia. The natural shape of 'A' arms makes them very strong in the direction of travel, therefore I'm only really commenting on the direction of jounce.

I'll be very general here, but it makes the point-

For the flat plate arms, I think they are 3/4" thick. Let's assume they are 2" wide at the bushing. Their second moment of inertia (or area) is 0.0703in4.

As a comparison we could compare that to a 1.5"OD x .120" wall DOM tube. Many use 1/4" wall but that's overkill. The second moment of inertia (or area) for this tube is 0.249in4. Essentially ~3.5 times stiffer.

Second moment of area rewards height in the dimension parallel to the force. This is why a wood 2x4 holds more weight and is stiffer when its standing up vs laying down. Same with an I-Beam. Speaking of I-beams, we can also compare areas to see how efficient the flat plate arms are at getting their strength..

Comparing the areas(aka weights, assume same 'length' & density), the tube is .520in2 vs the flat plate of 1.5in2, nearly ~3 times less.

The argument could be made that the arms get wider than 2" towards the center and are stronger than I'm giving them credit for where it counts. Let's assume the 3/4" flat plate arms were wide enough to give them the same second moment of area as the tube, how wide would they be? 7". And keep in mind a tubular control arm usually has 2 tubes in it and some plate. That's comparable to 14" plus of flat plate and the weight is next to nothing.

I won't get into the performance benefits of lighter components vs heavier ones, but I figured I would touch on the strength/safety side of things. I'm sure the flat plate arms are suitable for mock ups and rolling around the shop, but I'd never put my families life on them.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Thanks RADustin, that makes sense. I was planning on some type of aftermarket arms on my truck but I redid my shock mounting and its nearly laying the crossmember on the factory arms. I don't see a need in changing them now.

Re: Tubular control arms
 

Interesting